Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
methinks you mis-characterize this exercise. This is a choice of pro-life vis a vis pro-death but rather a pro-life pro-choice scenario and a proper one.
It is perfectly fine with me if a 30 something decides to end his/her life by either ignoring insurance coverage or living a risky life, i.e. speeding, drinking illegal drugs, promiscuous sexual propensities.
It is quite another to have another person make a decision for a human being before that human being has an opportunity to speak for him or herself.
The comparison shown during the debate were mis-leading and I am surprised not one of the candidates jumped on this
|
Perhaps I could have drawn the comparison in a better way.
So I will try... The premise here was the crowd didn't want to pay for this guy's hospital bill because he didn't have insurance... That is pretty much in line with the Republican and Tea Party's stance on birth control and abortion. "We shouldn't have to pay for that." Ok but the ramifications of that could be that a child is born. But then there is the assault on entitlement's, of course not all entitlements, but specifically welfare and Medicaid. "We don't want to pay for welfare for these kids." Had we paid for the birth control or at least had access to low cost birth control the entitlement bill might be lower. The Republicans have an all out assault on Planned Parenthood Clinics including those who do not provide abortions.
I one specific discussion with a Tea Party supporter revolved around entitlements like Pel grants. I said to I had helped my nephews with the college and he said "Well I shouldn't have to pay for that." But I asked him did his son receive any public funds helping pay his current college fees....to which he replied no. Unfortunately, for him, he was trapped in a lie..his son did get Pel grants and I knew it. So I asked him why was it ok for me to have to pay for his son and it was not ok for him to have to pay for my nephew? His answer was to walk away. So its the same old story....NOT FOR ME!
Returning to the point at hand.....the 30 year old without insurance. The Tea Party is pretty upset about the Federal Mandate that requires everyone to have insurance....to the point of filing lawsuits. It would appear that you all want people to have a choice but suffer death if you make the wrong one.
I found this statement odd....
It is quite another to have another person make a decision for a human being before that human being has an opportunity to speak for him or herself. You could have a living will which calls out what you want at the end of life but if you didn't have one then, using your logic, we could pull the plug. Right?